


A DEFENCE 



OP 



CaLUMBIA COLLEGE 



FROM 



THE ATTACK 



OF 



SAMUEL B, RUGGLES 



BY GOUYERNEUR M. QGDEN, 
A TRUSTEE. 






NEW-YORK: 

J. p. WRIGHT, PEINTER, 146 FULTON STREET. 
1854. 




A DEFENCE 



OP 



COLUMBIA COLLEGE 



FROM 



THE ATTACK 



OP 



SAMUEL B. RUGGLES. 



X 



BY GOUVERNEUR M. OGDEN, 
A TRUSTEE. 




NEW-YORK: 

J. p. WRIGHT, PRINTER, 146 FULTON STREET. 
1854. 






f 






DEFENCE 



A Pamphlet has lately been issued from the press under 
the title "The Duty of Columbia College to the Communi- 
ty, and its Right to exclude Unitarians from its Professor- 
ships of Physical Science, — considered by one of its Trus- 
tees." It goes forth under the name of its author. Though 
this production is in form, a letter to one of his colleagues, 
yet it is apparent it was originally intended to have, what 
has now been given to it, general circulation. This may 
be inferred from its contents, but more conclusively from the 
fact that it was not distributed to the Trustees earlier than 
within four days before the day on which the election was 
expected to be and was actually made. The Trustees had, 
previous to that time, several meetings, at which the subject 
of the vacancy of the Professorship of Chemistry and Natural 
and Experimental Philosophy, and the claims of the several 
candidates, were under consideration ; and several unsuc- 
cessful ballotings had taken place. Mr. Ruggles, therefore, 
must have well understood that the mind of each Trustee 
was so settled as to be beyond the reach of his arguments. 
The pamphlet probably was understood by some of those gen- 
tlemen, for whose eye it was primarily intended, as an intima- 
tion of a future appeal through its pages to the public, should 
they venture by their votes to disregard the admonitions of its 
author. If so, their suspicion has been turned into reality. 
For now, whatever may have been the original design of 
the writer, after the Board of Governors of one of the oldest 
and most respectable institutions of learning in this State 



has, by a legal election, filled a vacancy in one of its Pro- 
fessorships, an unsuccessful candidate is brought before the 
pubUc by one of his warmest advocates, to complain that 
his claims to the office have been unjustly and even illegal- 
ly postponed to those of another. One would suppose that 
the presumption against the justice of such complaint was 
very strong, and that it would require reasons of extraordi- 
nary weight to overcome the considerations of propriety 
which might be expected to induce him quietly to acqui- 
esce in the selection of another, a fellow- worker in the same 
walks of science in which he moves. In the judgment of 
Mr. Ruggles, such reasons exist. 

Upon examining the pamphlet in question, it will be 
found to start upon the position that the Trustees who 
did not vote for Dr. Gibbs, but voted for the gentleman 
who was finally elected, did so knowing that, apart 
from considerations of religions faith, and of the means 
which had been used to effect his election, the former had 
the superior qualifications — was pre-eminently fit for the 
Professorship. His pre-eminent fitness being established, 
Dr. Gibbs is in the position of being rejected^ deprived of a 
right. And it is asked on what grounds was this rejection 
justified. These grounds are then stated to be — 1. That 
indecorous, intemperate and disrespectful means had been 
used to assert the superiority of his claims ; and 2. That 
he was a Unitarian. Both of these objections are argued 
against at great length, and it is insisted that neither can 
enter into the motives of any Trustee in giving his vote 
without injury to the best interests of the institution and to 
science which it ought to promote, and without violation of 
his duty to the public, to his trust, and to the law. 

First, then, as to the allegation of the acknowledged pre- 
eminence of Dr. Gibbs. Mr. Ruggles is entitled to express 
his own conviction of the superiority of the gentleman whose 
claims he so warmly and assiduously advocated. But with 
what right can he assume that others, who thought it their 
duty to take a course different from that he followed, enter- 



\ 



tained the same conviction 7 It is utterly denied that in 
the Board of Trustees, or out of it, such pre-eminence was 
ever admitted by any who gave their support to other can- 
didates. Still less is it true that the act of the Board itself, 
in making choice of a Professor to fill the vacancy lately 
existing, can be shown to have been, or was in fact, any- 
thing but the deliberate expression of its judgment as to the 
relative fitness of the candidates. The testimonials of all 
the candidates were before it. The duty and right devolved 
upon the members of that Board to consider the weight and 
force due to the evidence of the qualifications of each ; to 
take into consideration all such facts as" their own inquiries 
might bring to light, or might otherwise come to their know- 
ledge, and which they judged bore upon the character and 
attainments or the evidence in favor of any whose merits 
were in question. The testimonials of one of such candi- 
dates, through the zeal of his friends, have been printed ; 
and Mr. Ruggles deems them conclusive. None of the 
others have been printed, nor will be : yet they show high 
capacity in those to whom they relate ; and in them the 
Board has found a sufficient justification of its choice. Many 
Trustees, as respectable and conscientious, and devoted to 
the interests and proper objects of the College, as Mr. Ruggles 
himself, deemed one of those candidates to be the most 
competent to fill the chair of all whose names were submit- 
ted ; yet it is true, that when it was found that he could not 
be elected, it was proposed by two of them, for the sake of 
harmony, that both the most prominent candidates should 
be abandoned. It is then asked, " How could they with- 
draw his name, and vote for some other candidate whom 
they considered less fit, and perhaps did not know to be fit 
at all ?" The answer is plain : They abandoned him be- 
cause he could not be elected, and then cast their votes for 
one abundantly qualified for the chair, and whom they 
deemed next in rank. They did know him to be fit, and 
were well assured of his fitness by his testimonials, by his 
wide-spread and well-deserved reputation, and by the can- 



6 

didly expressed opinions, personally elicited, of gentlemen 
of science, in whom they had confidence, amongst whom 
was a member of the Board itself. 

But a member of the Board of Trustees of this institution 
has reconciled it to his sense of duty to make an appeal to 
the public from its legally expressed judgment, and to put 
himself in an attitude of hostility against her : and depart- 
ing from the well understood custom under which frank ex- 
pressions of opinion have been considered confidential in a 
small body of gentlemen, amongst whom hitherto the great- 
est freedom of intercourse has prevailed, he has thought fit 
to seize upon such expressions, and to proclaim them to the 
world as evidence of the sole motive for votes cast more 
than two months afterwards. More private declarations, 
alleged to have been made, are also dragged to the light 
for the same purpose. How far this can be reconciled to a 
true regard for the interests of this institution, is a distinct 
question. But the motives, under the influence of which 
each member of the Board finally cast his vote, after the 
interval had given him full opportunity to form an opin- 
ion, are known only to himself, and to those to whom he 
has revealed them. As to all others, they must in a great 
measure be matters of conjecture. The writer of this paper 
has as much right to form a judgment on that head as Mr. 
Ruggles, and has had equal opportunities ; and he asserts 
that the above positions are true. 

If then the foregoing be a just exposition of the true intent 
and force of the act of the Trustees, as an expression of their 
judgment upon the relative merits of the candidates, what 
becomes of the cry of religious persecution— of rejection for 
opinions' sake ? If Dr. Gibbs was not pre-eminent in the 
opinion of the Trustees — and upon their opinion the question 
depends, — then it was their duty to choose as they have done, 
him they thought best qualified. And Dr. Gibbs was not, 
as has been arrogantly claimed, rejected. Yet this allega- 
tion of intolerance, though without legitimate place in this 
controversy, has its end to serve, Uke many other means 



e 



resorted to with the same intent. Of those, as indicating the 
true motive of the present attack upon the College, we will 
hereafter speak. So also it is evident that there is no perti- 
nency to the matter in hand, of all that Mr. Ruggles so elo- 
quently writes of the objects of the College — the purposes of 
its creation — its alleged past culpable neglect of Physical 
Science — its duty to the public, and the great need for the 
faithful performance of that duty — its present indifference. 
All these topics are ostensibly introduced to enforce the pro- 
priety of the election of Dr. Gibbs, on the assumption that 
he, of all the agents whose services the College has the 
power to secure, is pre-eminently qualified to accomplish as 
to Physical Science, the end the Trustees ought to have in 
view. The pre-eminence gone, and all this able display of 
zeal for the promotion of science has no force as argument. 
But this too had another purpose, as will presently be seen. 

But though, as above shown, it is in reality immaterial 
whether or not the Trustees of the College individually had 
the right to take into account the religious belief of the gen- 
tleman whose qualifications for a chair of science have 
been made the theme of public discussion, because, in fact, 
the result of the ballot did not depend upon that question : 
yet the positions in this respect of the pamphlet of Mr. Rug- 
gles, are so unsound and so dangerous, if generally preva- 
lent, to the independent management of every institution of 
learning in the State, as to call for a refutation. 

This, it should be remarked, is a question of right and of 
law : and ill-defined notions of religious liberty, and sympa- 
thy of friends of the party supposed to be affected by the 
application of the law in a particular instance, have noth- 
ing to do with it. They are artfully brought in to subserve 
the end in view. 

It may be thought a case of hardship, that any indi- 
vidual, by reason of his rehgious faith, has failed to 
procure the votes of men in whose power it lay to give 
him an office he sought and was quahfied to fill; that, 
though not disqualified by any act of the body of which 



/? 



8 

those men were members, he yet for that reason wanted 
their suifrages. This may seem very unreasonable and 
very unjust, or may not seem so, according to the views of 
those who censure or praise. But it has nothing to do with 
the question of law. Nor in the supposed case, would there 
be any infringement of the right to the free exercise and 
enjoyment of religious freedom and worship. He could, 
notwithstanding the disappointment, fully exercise and 
enjoy his religion, without restraint. His freedom in that 
respect would be as perfect after, as before ; and therefore, 
the mere fact that he was not elected, would not constitute 
any violation of his constitutional right. If the law protects 
him against such a misfortune, then he has a right to com- 
plain of legal wrong, but not otherwise. 

How, then, does this question of law stand? The 
charter of the institution, and the acts of the Legisla- 
ture confirmatory of the same, are quoted. By the first ) 
of these, the Governors are prohibited from enacting any 
ordinance, order, or by-law of the College, which shall 
extend to exclude any person of any religious denom- 
ination whatever from equal liberty and advantage of edu- 
cation, or from any of the degrees, privileges, and immuni- 
ties of the said College, on account of his particular tenets 
in matters of reUgion. And by the second of these, it is 
provided that none of the ordinances or by-laws of the Col- 
lege shall make the religious tenets of any person a condi- ff 
tion of admission to any privilege or office in the said 
College. In addition to these enactments, we find quoted 
the General Law of the State applicable to all incorporated 
colleges and academies therein : that " no religious quali- 
fication or test shall be required from any trustee, president, 
principal, or other officer of any incorporated college or 
academy, or as a condition of admission to any privilege in 
the same." 

The question may be asked in reference to this pro- 
vision. What does the law mean by "required?" By 
what act, and by what authority, in what mode, must this 



exaction of a religious qualification or test be made, in or- 
der to constitute a violation of the law? Can it mean any- 
thing else than that the act to constitute a violation of the 
law must be done by the established authorities of the col- 
lege or academy, to which in any instance particular appli- 
cation of the provision is to be made ? In what mode, 
then, is it forbidden to be done ? Common sense indicates 
the answer : By the act of the body in which the man- 
agement or government of the institution is vested. It acts 
collectively, and expresses its determinations in the shape 
of resolutions, by-laws, and orders. Acting in this way, it 
has the power to remove from, or to admit to offices in its 
gift. Its constituent parts have no such power ; and with- 
out that power, they of course can exact no condition 
whatever under which persons shall be admitted to or hold 
such offices. The party to be restrained can be none other 
than that in which the power rests, upon which the re- 
straint is intended to operate. It is inteUigible to say, that 
the acts of such body thus expressed, done in violation of 
the law, are illegal. But to say that the law does, or 
meant to, control the motives of individual members of 
such a body, is to engraft upon it an additional provision, 
— a principle to the enforcement of which legislation in 
this State has not yet reached. 

Again, are we to understand that this legal provision of 
such general scope, overrides all the clauses in particular 
charters directed to the enforcement of the same principle, 
or calculated for the promotion of particular branches of 
learning ? Whether made before or after this enactment, 
such charters are contracts made between the State and the 
particular institutions to which they relate. If made before, 
they cannot be aff"ected by such law ; if made after, they 
repeal it so far as inconsistent with it. Else there is not 
a chartered Theological Seminary in this State that is 
not, equally with us, subject to the consequences of such 
a construction. We must therefore resort to the charters 
themselves, of the College, in order to form a just idea of 



10 

this principle, right in itself^ and only mischievous in the 
attempted application. 

Referring then again ta these charters, we find that the 
Trustees are forbidden, by any ordinance, order, or by-la Wy 
to exclude any person from office by reason of his particular 
tenets in matters of rehgion, or by ordinance, or by-law, to 
make a religious qualifi.cation or test a condition of holding 
office or of admission to the same : or more properly speak- 
ing, they have no power to pass any by-law or ordinance 
having such effect. This provision is inserted both in the 
original charter and in the charter granted by the State as 
a proviso^ limiting the power to make by-laws and ordi- 
nances. It is merely a restraint upon that authority. How 
then can this be made to reach beyond its proper object r 
in place of prohibiting the act of a specified kind of the 
whole body — to forbid the exercise of a very different power 
in the members of that body. It is said that, because the 
College has no power to enact a by-law making religious 
profession an exclusion from office, no member of the Board 
of Trustees has a right to take the religious profession of a 
candidate into account, as a motive governing or influencing 
his action in casting his vote for a person to fill a vacant 
office ; and the denial of the justice of this inference is stated 
to be the assertion of a higher law of conscience, claimed to 
override the obligation of a human law. But Mr. Ruggles 
has not supported his position further than by the bare as- 
sertion that the general principle, which he contends for, is 
enforced by the laws above referred to. How enforced'^ 
Not by their terms. Those laws do not say that the discre- 
tion of each Trustee shall be so fettered, nor can by any 
process of reasoning, when they deny one power, be made 
to restrict the exercise of a very diff"erent power. The sec- 
ond section of an act relative to Columbia College in the 
City of New- York, passed 23d March, 1810, and comprising 
the charter of the College in one act, gives power to the 
Trustees to select and appoint, by ballot or otherwise, such 
professor or professors, to assist the President in the govern- 



11 



„.e„t and education of the students ^^elonging to the College 
as to the said Trustees shall seem meet. The Trustees 
have then a right to elect by ballot, with an uncon^ol d 
discretion. The charter contains no provision by which 
this important right is restricted or made subject to any 
inquisitorial power to ferret out the motives by wh>ch ea* 
Trustee may have been actuated in exercising it A\hea 
therefore it may seem expedient, for any cause bearing upon 
the interests or the good government of this or any other 
literary or scientific institution, to take into consideration 
the re igious profession of any candidate for a vacant pro- 
fessorship,in preferring anotherto h*-/^ «4-^^."-— ^ ' 
or even adequate attainments, it would be sufficient to jus- 
tify the motive for the act of each particular Trustee or 
manager, influenced by such considerations, to say that he 
violates ^o human law, and therefore is not reduced to the 
necessity of availing himself of the plea put into his rnouth 
by Mr. Ruggles, of preferring the law of conscience to the 

law of the land. 

The allegation of prosecution for opinion's sake set up 
in the pamphlet under review, raises in this particular case 
a false issue, as it would appear to further an u tenor design. 
But its positions of law are mischievous, not only as dissemi- 
nating loose and inaccurate notions of the meamng of the 
law. but also as tending to fetter and control the Foperman- 
a*3ment of the concerns, not only of Columbia College, but 
of all similar institutions. Although in some features of its 
sovernment-the necessity, growing out of a condition under 
which it holds a great part of its estate, that its Presiden 
should be in communion with the Protestant Episcopal 
Church-the form of daily worship according to the liturgy 
of that Church, prescribed by the same condition-and the 
accidental preponderance in its Board of Trustees of persons 
in the same communion-connect it more particularly with 
one Church than with any other: a feature common to 
almost every similar institution in the country, and as secur- 
in- to it a religious character, not regretted by any of its 



12 

true friends : yet it has never confined its privileges or offices 
to any religious denomination, but has given equal advan- 
tages to all. This fact, statements in the pamphlet under 
review Avill show. It tells us, that by a statute of the Col- 
lege in force, any religious denomination, endowing a pro- 
fessorship in certain branches of science, shall forever have 
the right of nominating a professor to the same, subject to 
the approbation of the Trustees. And it is justly inferred 
that the Trustees could not rightfully reject such nomination, 
for the sole cause that the nominee belonged to the religious 
denomination who proposed him. In the case of the very 
vacancy which has been the occasion of the present un- 
sought controversy, a further proof of this may be found. 
We have paraded in the public papers, with the reckless 
impropriety which characterizes the whole conduct of this 
war upon the College, the assumed statement of the votes 
of the Trustees ; and it will be found, so far as that state- 
ment is entitled to credit, that all who voted for a Unitarian, 
with one exception, belong to the Episcopal Church, and 
that the successful candidate, who does not belong to that 
Church, was elected by the votes of members of the Epis- 
copal, Dutch Reformed, and Presbyterian Churches. Where 
then is the foundation for the accusation that the College is 
exclusive, or that there is a disposition in its Trustees to 
keep its offices for the benefit of members of the Episcopal 
Church? 

But although this exclusive character cannot be charged 
upon the College, yet many cases might occur in which it 
might be highly expedient in the judicious management of 
its concerns, and with a proper regard to its interests, and 
to the promotion of its usefulness, to take the religious pro- 
fession or belief of a candidate for a vacant professorship 
into account. For instance, this College supports a profes- 
sorship, one branch of the duty of which is to teach and 
explain the Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion. 
Ought this duty to be committed to an infidel, who attach- 
es no weight to those Evidences ; or to a Mahommedan or 



13 

Jew, who believe them not at all, so far as they vindicate 
the truth of the Christian religion, which, in a Christian 
institution, they are relied upon to instil and enforce in the 
minds of its students ? Or, suppose that when a vacancy 
of one chair should occur, it should be found that all the 
others, then being filled, were occupied by gentlemen of 
one and the same reUgious denomination, — might not the 
Trustees rightfully, with a view of preventing the convic- 
tion becoming prevalent in the community, that the College 
was used as a means of patronage and support of the 
members of a particular Church, and of averting the evil 
that would in consequence fall upon itself, take this matter 
into consideration? And might they not, when two candi- 
dates were presented of equal qualifications, choose him at- 
tached to the Church to which the other professors did not 
belong ? Or suppose that, in case of a vacancy, Trustees 
should see, in such way as to produce convictron in their 
minds, that an attempt by intrigue ard intimidation to 
force a candidate of a particular religious belief into the 
College, was the precursor of future attempts to remove 
by the same means from their chairs their present occu- 
pants, to make room for others of the persuasion of him 
sought then to be introduced, — perhaps to the entire des- 
truction of the character of the institution of which they 
are the guardians, — may they not in such case prefer, by 
their votes, one of equal attainments to him supported by 
such influences ? In all these cases, the discretion which 
each Trustee would be left free to exercise by a reply in 
the affirmative, would be proper and necessary, if we have 
regard only to the promotion of education, to the usefulness 
of the institution, or to its due government : yet the motive 
in each case for the choice would be drawn solely from the 
consideration of the rehgious profession of a particular can- 
didate. And to the same extent that the exercise of the 
discretion manifestly proper in such cases would be benefi- 
cial, would the refraining from its exercise be hurtful, and 
subversive of the prosperity and good order of every college 



14 

or academy whose trustees might regulate their conduct by 
the arbitrary rule now attempted to be enforced. 

The error is in not distinguishing between a disqualifi- 
-cation by virtue of a rule operating upon a class and a dis- 
crimination in the case of a particular individual of that 
class. The one is impoHtic and unjust, as well as illegal ; 
the other is legal, and may in particular instances be both 
just and consistent with sound policy. And care should be 
taken that a principle should not be advocated or adopted 
through a mistaken regard for the rights of one person, 
which, carried into practice, would be an infringement of 
the rights of a large number of persons. As an illustration 
of this : religious profession is not, and ought not to be, a 
disqualification for any political office ; yet, who shall pre- 
vent, — what law prevents, or ought to prevent, an elector 
from taking such profession into account in forming his es- 
timate of a candidate, and as a motive for throwing his 
ballot for or against him ? 

Among the grounds of objection to Dr. Gibbs, stated by 
Mr, Ruggles to have been made by Trustees, are the means 
that have been used outside of the College to further his 
election. These are enumerated as " the petition of the 
Alumni for his appointment — the concurrence of some of 
the parents of the under-graduates in that petition — news- 
paper paragraphs, intemperately and indecorously asserting 
the superiority of his claims," And we are told that " the 
objection made to these was, that they constituted an outside 
pressure, in which it did not become the Trustees to ac- 
quiesce, and which their official dignity required them to 
resist, by electing some other candidate," This is a mode 
of stating the matter well suited for the purposes of satire, 
but neither calculated to persuade the colleagues of the au- 
thor who differed from him in opinion — to bring whom to a 
better mind he affected to write, —nor consistent with the 
truth. 

The papers signed by the Alumni were not petitions. 
They were simply recommendations of the appointment of 



15 

Dr. Gibbs for the vacant chair, and as such were submitted 
with and as part of his testimonials — as evidence in his 
favor. As such they required no answer. They did not 
purport to give any quaUfication of the gentleman in whose 
favor they were presented, nor any fact to assist the Trus- 
tees to form an opinion as to his abiUties, acquirements or 
character. They might therefore properly be regarded as 
the respectful expression of the wish of the signers that, if 
found in all respects the best suited for the place, he might 
be put into it. And in the case of two candidates, in the 
judgment of the Board equally fit, a proper regard to that 
wish would have cast the choice in favor of him possessing 
the recommendation of a considerable part of the Alumni. 
This implies no disrespect to the Alumni. The Board of 
Trustees have ever stadiously treated the Alumni with re- 
gard and respect. As the sons of the College, and more 
than all other men in the community attached to her in- 
terests and welfare, their good will and favorable opinion 
has always been the hope and reliance of her managers as 
inseparable from her prosperity. None, it is believed, of 
those managers has departed from this just view of the re- 
lationship, nor from the respect which is its consequence. 
The writer of this answer is alone responsible for the views 
here put forth of the force properly due to the application of 
the Alumni in question. To those among them whose 
friendship for the party concerned does not unhappily mis- 
lead their judgment, they will appear sound. There was 
no disrespect then to the Alumni, either through any dispo- 
sition made or omitted to be made of their communication, 
or in not acceding to their recommendation. Why are they 
then, or any part of them, to be arrayed against the College 
or its Trustees ? In place of standing by her, to join in the 
cry against her, and to lend the weight of their influence to 
give probability to the accusations which are made the 
foundation of a Legislative Inquiry directed against her 
very existence ? The reason for this, it is most respectful- 
ly said, ought not to be because men, to whom the guar- 



16 

dianship of her concerns has been for the time committed, 
have firmly done what they considered their duty to her. 

Thus much may however be stated in regard to the re- 
commendation of the Alumni, though not, as far as the 
knowledge or recollection of the writer extends, ever said in 
the Board of Trustees. A large number of the Alumni 
signed that paper, and, so far as they are concerned, it mat- 
tered not under what circumstances they had affixed their 
names. Whatever those circumstances, the signers were en- 
titled to respect. But as to the party in whose favor they 
were collected, it is a different question. And when it came 
to the knowledge of several of the Trustees that, instead of 
the signing of that paper being the spontaneous act of those 
whose approbation it purported to express, the Alumni had 
been laboriously canvassed, and in Some instances repeat- 
edly solicited to affix their names, it became a matter of re- 
gret to such Trustees that resort should have been had to 
such a measure to enforce the claims of an applicant for a 
scientific chair. 

But we are told that some of the parents of the under- 
graduates concurred in the alleged petition of the Alumni. 
It is true that printed circulars, praying the Trustees to ap- 
point Dr. Gibbs, were issued by persons to the parents of the 
students for their signatures. It may be conjectured that 
the energy and industry of the friends of that gentleman 
left none of the parents of the one hundred and forty (whom 
Mr. Ruggles states the College teaches) unsolicited. Yet 
but twenty-two yielded by signing the proffered petition. 
Yet not one word of comment was made by any one in the 
Board on the subject, nor was this in any manner alluded 
to as evidence of " outside pressure." 

We come now to the other means resorted to for the pur- 
pose of securing to Dr. Gibbs a chair in this College, which 
(according to Mr. Ruggles) formed a reason for preferring 
another to him. But first among such, it is proposed to 
examine the allegations and arguments contained in the 
pamphlet, so far as not already answered, which, although 



17 

they could not be expected to produce any beneficial effect 
on his colleagues, yet are of importance as throwing light 
upon the motives of the author, and the credit due to him, and 
as a link in the chain of evidence to connect many things 
that have been done with the actors. But this examination 
has likewise an interest of a different kind : for, under the 
cloak of the advocacy of the claims of an individual, the 
Pamphlet contains grave charges against the management 
of an institution of which the author is a Trustee, calcula- 
ted to injure her in the estimate of the community — charges 
not confined to the case of the particular individual whom 
it is ostensibly written to sustain, but reaching to the gen- 
eral management of the College in past and present times. 
These would be injurious if coming from without ; but, 
emanating, as they do, from one whose duty it is, from his 
relationship to the College, to guard, protect and sustain 
her, there is hazard that the public may suppose that he is 
not unmindful of that duty, and that imperious considera- 
tions of right and truth have impelled him to the course he 
has adopted. Talent and plausibihty, joined to the person- 
al position of the inflicter, it may justly be feared have given 
for the time effect to the blow. And now it seems necessa- 
ry for some friend of the College, who will undertake the 
gratuitous labor, to defend her from this attack. 

In arguing against the force of the objection that Dr. 
Gibbs is a Unitarian, Mr. Ruggles bestows upon his co- 
Trustees an exposition of the objects of the College, drawn 
from the charter, and he tells us that they are the Educa- 
tion and Instruction of Youth in the Learned Languages 
and the Liberal Arts and Sciences. He then dilates upon 
the little that has been done within our walls, for the time 
past, for the promotion of Physical Science, — which ought 
to have a distinguished place in the instruction furnished 
by the institution ; reminds us of our duty to the public, 
and of our persevering neglect of that duty ; ably sets forth 
his views of our obligation to found a great seat of learn- 
ing, the necessity for its foundation, and the conviction of 



18 

such necessity existing in the public mind. And this all 
ends in the conchision, that Dr. Gibbs ought to be elected, 
as being the only instrument within reach, so far as his pe- 
cuhar province is concerned, fit to carry out this great and 
beneficent design. Yet, if it shall be shown that the Trus- 
tees are not justly chargeable with past or present neglect, 
and that they were, when the author wrote, as fully con- 
scious of the importance of enlarging the sphere of useful- 
ness of the College as himselfj and had to his knowledge 
given the best evidence in their acts of such consciousness, 
then it is evident that his censures were not necessary, 
either to remind his colleagues of their duty or to enforce 
the conclusion to which all tended. He might in that case 
have done them the justice to put his argument in this- 
form — that, '^whilst the Board were anxious, and were 
taking the best measures to improve and enlarge their 
course of instruction in the Physical Sciences, they ought 
certainly not to fail to avail themselves of the services of 
the agent best fitted to carry a part of their design into ex- 
ecution." He might thus have mitigated in some degree 
the severity of the blow he has aimed at an institution ta 
which he professes 'to owe his best affections, and for whose 
interest and honor' he avers 'he has never ceased to strive 
during the many years in which it has been his pride to 
serve her' ; and yet not have failed of the avowed object he 
had in view. In other words, he might have written more 
truly and justly, yet with no less force ; and if it can be 
shown that his censures are not justified by the fact, he has 
not only injured where he was bound to protect, but the in- 
jury is gratuitous, even on the supposition that his main de- 
sign was laudable. 

Now admitting the importance of Physical Science, and 
the duty of the College as a pubUc institution to give ade- 
quate instruction in it, according to its ability, and the needs 
and demands of the community — a proposition which no 
one of Mr. Ruggles' colleagues denies, or has been heard by 
him to deny — what is his accusation either as applied to 



19 

the past or the present? It will be understood to be, 1. That 
the Trustees have not properly filled up their present course 
of instruction — have not appointed professors enough to ren- 
der that course effective ; nor given to the Professor of the 
Natural Sciences, lately occupying the only chair they have 
instituted, adequate accommodations. 2. That the course 
of instruction is too narrow, and ought to be expanded into 
a University, where, in place of being taught as now, in 
their elements, the Physical Sciences might have the im- 
portance given to them which modern discoveries sug- 
gest, and a thorough mastery of each or any might be 
imparted to the student — (at least this is understood to 
be the comprehensive idea intimated;) and that the Trus- 
tees are, and have ever been dead to the consideration 
of the wisdom or practicability of any such extension, 
or to the giving instruction in the same sciences to any who 
might not be willing to come up to the high standard of the 
College in classical learning. 

On the first head. It has for some time been the favorite 
object of Mr. Ruggles to procure the division, by the Board 
of Trustees, of the duties of the chair of Natural and Expe- 
rimental Philosophy and Chemistry, and to make Chemis- 
try the subject of a distinct Professorship. His efforts to 
this end have been constantly and steadily resisted. If this 
resistance had been grounded upon any denial of, or failure 
to realize the wide range of the sciences the tuition in which 
was committed to a single professor, or indifference to the 
subject, there would be truth in the complaint. But such 
is not the fact. The reason for not yielding to Mr. Ruggles' 
motion has always been stated to be, that so long as by our 
present course we professed and attempted to teach only the 
elements of the sciences assigned to the chair, one compe- 
tent to fill it could always adequately discharge its duties. 
In this opinion the Board were fortified by the judgment of 
scientific men inside and outside the Board ; and this view 
of the subject Mr. Ruggles has never, in his proper place, 
even attempted to answer. But, as will be shown, the Trus- 



'20 

tees, while unwilling to make any partial change, or to sup- 
port two Professors to be charged with duties that could be 
perfectly performed by one, were yet not contented with the 
system of instruction the continuance of which justified 
their then action. So far then, and as to this point, the 
accusations of Mr. Ruggles are falsified by the fact. 

As to the neglect of the Trustees to afford the Professor 
in the department named better accommodations than those 
he had for years occupied, the facts substantiate it to a 
degree. He has had in occupation a room partly below the 
surface of the ground, sufficiently lighted in the front and 
rear by windows, fitted as a laboratory, and commodious 
enough, until recently, for the accommodation of his class. 
With a magnificent apparatus, purchased at an expense of 
ten thousand dollars, he has needed an additional room up- 
stairs for lectures and experiments not requiring the use of 
the Laboratory — a necessity always admitted, but which 
the want of sufficient buildings and a limited income have 
compelled the Trustees to postpone. In the time, however, 
of the late Professor, a measure was devised, under the direc- 
tion of a committee, with the consent of the President, by 
which the abandonment by the President of his room, (an 
inconvenience which he expressed his willingness to submit 
to temporarily, and until time would allow of a better ar- 
rangement,) would have obviated the difficulty. This how- 
ever has not been carried into execution, owing to discus- 
sions which have taken place relative to the early removal 
of the College. This statement, however, ought to be suffi- 
cient to repel the charge of past or present indifference on 
the subject. 

The second ground of complaint is, that the College has 
not been expanded into a Great Seat of Learning, and we are 
told that it is not the want of means that has prevented this. 
He says : " The difficulty Hes deeper than the want of 
money. We have wanted Trustees — more zealously to 
carry out the purposes defined by our charter. We have 
avowedly and perseveringly neglected, undervalued and 



21 

disparaged the Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the world 
has avenged the neglect, by neglecting us." 

So far as this censure affects the past, what truth is there 
in it? The condemnation extends not to the living only, 
but to the dead : and Livingston, Hamilton, Mason, Hari- 
son, Hobart, Morris, King, Miller, Troup, Jay, Ogden, 
Fish, Irving, Jones, Campbell, Lawrence — hitherto hon- 
orable names — in common with Mr. Ruggles' cotempora- 
ries, share the odium. Now, successive annual reports 
of the Treasurers of the College for the seventeen years 
last past, (which is as far as access to records of them 
has been convenient,) show that whilst the income of the 
College has been faithfully applied to the purposes of educa- 
tion for that period of time, the Trustees have not limited 
their expenses to that income, but have incurred a constantly 
increasing debt, the accumulations of which have sustained 
and increased the means of instruction which they have 
been enabled to afford to the community. To enable it to 
do what it has done, the College has increased its debt by 
such gradual accumulations from the sum of $51,506 31, at 
the end of the financial year terminating on October 1,1837, 
to the sum of $78,500, at the end of the financial year end- 
ing on the 1st October, 1852. The debt was not increased 
during the year ending on the 1st October, 1853, owing to 
the increase in the rents of the College, and the absence of 
any large extraordinary expenses for the payment of assess- 
ments on its property. The incurring this indebtedness, for 
the purpose of keeping the institution in a state of efficiency, 
was justified by the certainty that the increase in the value 
of its landed estate would, in the progress of not many years, 
afford the means of discharging the debt. But it is mani- 
fest that the Trustees proceeded to the verge of prudence in 
order to meet the just demands of the community. But Mr. 
Ruggles says if we had done more, the means would have 
been added to us. Could more have been done by the Trus- 
tees of this institution without just censure of another kind, 
that they had mismanaged, and squandered or impaired its 



22- 

estate ? Even in the past, in common with some other col- 
leges in this country, a parallel Scientific Course was estah- 
iished by the College, upon which students might attend 
without any proficiency in, or attention to classical studies. 
This was discontinued after a trial of several years, only 
because so few were found to avail themselves of it as, in 
the judgment of the Trustees, to render its further contin- 
uance inexpedient. All then has hitherto been done that 
could be done with judgment, and the means were not added 
to us. 

It is no doubt deeply to be regretted, that private gifts to 
this old established College (which were heretofore solicited) 
have not enabled it hitherto to extend its usefulness, and to 
become what is greatly needed, a University for the com- 
plete instruction of youth, not only in the Natural Sciences, 
but in all other branches of human knowledge proper to be 
taught in such a seat of learning. But this expanded idea 
has not yet been realized in this country. Neither private 
nor public liberality has afforded the large pecuniary re- 
sources necessary to realize it. What has been done has 
had a more limited scope. Private liberality has founded 
institutions of a more limited aim — independent founda- 
tions, with pecuhar organizations, bearing the impress of 
the plans and intentions of the founders, and the very in- 
dependency of which is inseparable from their existence. 
Such are the Astor Library, and the Cooper Institute. There 
is no probability that any of the means that have found 
their way to these, or to the Free Academy, would have 
been available for Columbia College, had she ventured, re- 
lying upon such support, to incur expenses far beyond her 
ability from her own resources to meet. The means for the 
support of the Free Academy are drawn by periodical taxa- 
tion from the people, whilst it is governed by officers elect- 
ed by popular vote. The State does not give such large 
donations as would have been required in this instance, to 
incorporated Colleges independent of her direct control. It 
may well be doubted, therefore, whether any of the large 



23 

donations or resources which have supported the three in- 
stitutions named would ever have been ours. 

The state of society, and the Avant (at all events until of 
late years) of wealth and of adequate sense in the commu- 
nity of the usefulness of such institutions, it may be con- 
jectured, have prevented the endowment by public or pri- 
vate means of great Schools of Science in this country ; and 
it is even now necessary to resort, as Mr. Ruggles admits 
when he speaks of the expectations of men of science with 
reference to Columbia College, to existing incorporations 
whose endowments, swelled into importance by lapse of 
time, are supposed to enable them to undertake such vast 
designs. 

But now, he says, " poverty is no longer a valid excuse." 
The Trustees offer no excuse, but reahze and acknowledge, 
as fully as Mr. Ruggles can do, their duty to the State as 
well as to their other benefactors, to administer the property 
within their charge so as to afford to the community every 
advantage for education which their means will allow. 
This is their whole duty. 

The income of the College for the past year has not 
been more than sufficient for its wants. Its whole net rev- 
enue has not exceeded $17,516 74, including tuition fees ; 
and the ordinary expenses of the institution have consumed 
that amount, except a balance of $621 84, which remained 
in the Treasurer's hands at the expiration of the financial 
year, on the 1st October, 1853. After the 1st of May, 1854, 
however, the rents of the College will be increased by the 
sum of $5,000, from which must be deducted so much as 
must be allowed for rent to two or more Professors, who 
may be removed from their houses to give additional ac- 
commodations for instruction. This deduction may leave 
an additional revenue of from $2,000 to $3,000, disposable 
for the increase of the usefulness of the College. 

The above statement includes all the revenue that is de- 
rived, or can be derived for many years to come, from the 
College property in the lower part of the city, not immedi- 



24 

ateljr in the occupation of the College, all of which, includ- 
ing the present site of the Grammar-School, is subject to 
long leases. The rest of the College property is at present 
unproductive. It comprises the site of the College, with its 
Green, and the estate commonly known as the Botanic Gar- 
den. Of the latter it may be said, that whilst, when re- 
duced to the city grade, it may be made productive of a 
large revenue, yet this will require a very large outlay, 
which, united to the cost of erecting new College buildings, 
will balance to a large extent the resources of the College 
which would otherwise be derived from other portions of 
its estate. 

Still, there can be no doubt that when the work of fitting 
for the market the Botanic Garden shall be finished, it will 
immediately and rapidly become productive of revenue, 
and by its increased value amply repay the cost. This 
work, when commenced, will require two years for its com- 
pletion. If the advice of Mr. Ruggles had been followed by 
the leasing or sale of the Botanic Garden four years ago, 
when its market value did not exceed $150,000, he would 
not now have it in his power to set down its value at 
$400,000, in his inventory of the estate of the College. 

It must be evident from the foregoing statement, that any 
increase in the revenue of the College beyond that which it 
will enjoy for the present year, is prospective merely ; and 
that that present increase is inconsiderable, as a means of 
carrying out any grand design. 

But have the Trustees been unmindful of this prospective 
large increase of revenue, or careless to make provision for 
a wise use of it, such as would satisfy the great ends for 
which the College was endowed? 

On the 4th October, 1852, a Special Committee was ap- 
pointed, who, besides other matters, were charged with the 
duty " to consider and report upon the expediency of en- 
grafting upon this College a scheme of University Professor- 
ships and Lectures in the higher departments of Letters 
and Science, and to report in detail as to the extent to which 



25 

such a scheme is now practicable, and as to the means of 
adequately endowing the Professorships." This commit- 
tee, of which Mr. Ruggles was a member, made a partial 
report on 13lh December, 1852, and asked leave to continue 
and report as to the other matters referred. At the same 
time they reported two resolutions, one of which was refer- 
red back; and the other, which recommended that in order 
to aiFord free tuition, advantage should be taken of the then 
(supposed) high price of real estate, to lease or sell portions 
of the College property as should be deemed advisable, es- 
pecially the portion then in the occupation of the College, 
was referred to the Standing Committee, who afterwards 
reported adversely to such a disposition • and wisely, as the 
result has proved. 

The same Special Committee, on the 3d January, 1853, 
read the same report they had previously made, but they 
never made any other or further report. 

But the subject Vas not suffered to drop here : for, on the 
7th February, 1853, a reference was made to a Special Com- 
mittee of Four, of which Mr. Ruggles was Chairman, " to 
inquire into the general condition of the Department of 
Chemistry and Natural and Experimental Philosophy, and 
whether any and what changes were necessary to be made 
therein." After this committee had reported, making a di- 
vision of the duties of the department unsatisfactory to the 
Board, their report was recommitted, and three members of 
the Board were added to the committee. And a majority 
of that committee, consisting of Dr. Henry J. Anderson, 
Hamilton Fish, Edward Jones, and Gouverneur M. Ogden, 
on the 3d October, 1853, made a report recommending that 
no action be had in reference to that Professorship solelj^, 
as being partial and very probably inconsistent with the 
comprehensive Scheme of Education which might eventu- 
ally be adopted. And, in accordance with the recommen- 
dation of that committee, the following Resolution was 
passed : 

" Eesolved, That it be referred to a Committee of Three, to be 

D 



26 

elected by ballot, to inquire whether it is expedient to take any and 
what measures for the removal of the Seat of the College ; and in 
the event of that removal, whether any and what changes ought 
to be made in the Under-graduate course, and whether it would be 
expedient to establish a system of University Education in addition 
to such Under-graduate course, either in continuation thereof or other- 
wise. That such Committee report fully as to the principles and de- 
tails of any plan that they may recommend, and whether in their 
opinion it can be successfully carried into execution ; and in connec- 
tion therewith, that they consider whether, for the more effectual 
carrying out such plan, and extending the benefits of this institution, 
it ought to afford rooms and commons, or rooms alone, for resident 
students, and ought to have its seat isolated." 

Mr. Riiggles dissented from this report ; and whilst he 
may claim that he could not assent to that part of it which 
recommended that no action should be had in reference to 
that chair, which has been his peculiar care, yet he might 
at least have granted his approbation to the inquiry. 

The Committee elected were William Betts, Dr. Henry 
J. Anderson, and Hamilton Pish, — ^to whom, in consequence 
of Governor Fish's necessary absence in Washington, was 
afterwards added the Rev. Dr. John Knox. 

The task confided to this Committee was one of great 
difficulty. To write indeed of this subject, as Mr. Ruggles 
has done, gracefully and with facility ; speaking in glow- 
ing terms of the advantages of Universities, the needs 
of the community, and the gi owing sense of those needs, 
yet dealing in generaUties — requires rare talent. But, by 
study and thought, to ascertain the true principles that 
ought to govern the creation of an enlarged system of edu- 
cation, and to apply those principles to all the details of a 
well-considered plan, having regard to the proper design of 
education, the demands of the community and the means 
of support, is a work of infinitely greater difficulty. It re- 
quires great powers of analysis and judgment, drawing to 
the use of the occasion the thoughts and experience of other 
men, but modifying and departing from them as difference 



27 

of circumstances, or as the manifest errors in old systems 
may require. 

To this task the Committee have with industry and abili- 
ty addressed themselves. And on the 7th November, one 
month after their appointment, they made a partial report, 
showing the research, thought and judgment they had ap- 
plied to the subject. Though stating their views as imma- 
ture, they say in that paper, in the following extract : 

" The instruction of the College, covering the period of life be- 
tween boyhood and manhood, and forming the bridge by which we 
pass from home into the world, is of most peculiar importance. To 
the College is committed the mind of the future Man, at this critical 
time : and it is the mission of the College, to use a modern but not 
unmeaning term, to direct and superintend the mental and moral 
culture, and to form the Man or the Mind. They are identical. " The 
mind is the man and the knowledge of the mind. A man is but 
what he knoweth." Moral and intellectual discipline, it is agreed, is 
the object of collegiate education. Tne mere acquisition of learning, 
however valuable and desirable in itself, is subordinate to this great 
work. Not only is this the peculiar business of the College, but 
in the College alone, as a general rule, can this work be performed. 
The design of a College is to make perfect the human intellect in 
all its parts and functions ; by means of a thorough training of all 
the intellectual faculties to attain their full development : and by 
the proper guidance of the moral functions, to direct them to a pro- 
per exertion. To form the mind, in short, is the high design of edu- 
cation as sought in a College course. A Liberal Education has been 
well defined to be " An education in which the individual is cultiva- 
ted, not as an instrument towards some ulterior end, but as an end 
unto himself alone : in other words, an education in which his abso- 
lute perfection as a man, and not merely his relative dexterity as a 
professional man, is the scope immediately in view." 

" We cannot however conceal from ourselves, that, however man- 
ifest and just this sentiment may seem to us, it does not meet with 
universal sympathy or acquiescence. On the contrary, the demand 
for what is termed progressive knowledge, so loudly uttered, and for 
fuller insti'uction in what are called the useful and practical sciences, 



28 

is at variance with this fundamental idea. The public generally, un- 
accustomed to look upon the mind except in connection with the body, 
and used to regard it as a machine for promoting the pleasures, the 
conveniences or the comforts of the latter, will not be satisfied with 
a system of education in which they are unable to perceive the di- 
rect connection between the knowledge imparted, and the bodily ad- 
vantages to be gained. For this reason, to preserve in some degree, 
high and pure education' and strict mental discipline, and to draw as 
many as possible within its influence, we must partially yield to 
those sentiments which we should be unable wholly to resist. Your 
Committee therefore think that while thoy would retain the system 
having in view the most perfect intellectual training, they might de- 
vise parallel courses, having this design at its foundation, but still 
adapted to meet the popular demand. A judicious modification of 
the present College course, aiming at thorough and harmonious in- 
struction in the Classics, Mathematics, Philosophies and kindred 
branches, in just proportions, may attain this object. And your 
Committee think that experience, authority and reason admonish us 
that we should not diminish, in the slightest degree, the high value 
which has been placed on the right acquisition of the Greek and 
Latin classics. Other courses, as the means of the College increase^ 
may at the same time be instituted ; perhaps with difierent faculties 
and in different halls ; in some of which the mathematical element 
might be more largely infused ; in others, the sciences directly and 
practically useful for the purposes of daily life. The details of this 
plan the Committee are not yet prepared to report, and they ask for 
further time for that purpose, but they have thought it proper to 
submit to the judgment of the Trustees the proposition, by which 
they suppose that the College may preserve the paramount system 
of thorough intellectual training, and still meet the demand for use- 
ful professional or active learning. 

" With regard to the estabhshmont of a University system in 
addition to the under-gradiiate course, the Committee are not pre- 
pared to say more than that they regard it favorably in such respects 
as it may be practicable : and they hope that it may be in part 
reached by the plan suggested by them. But they are admonished 
that this design is not free from serious difficulties. The proposition 
to engraft University education on the College courses has been agi- 



2$ 

tated in relation to the English Universities, and more especially in 
connection with Oxford ; but hitherto without any practical result. 
It has been thought, and your Committee do not consider it inappro- 
priate to repeat the suggestion, that ' this system in the first place 
had never yet been properly sifted : that there had been a vague call 
for some years for an expansion of the University in this direction, 
but nobody had gone below the mere surface of the subject, by 
which was meant one man saying what he heard another say : and 
the public intelligence had stopped at an idea, instead of pushing on 
into the sohd interior of the question. The University, it was ob- 
sorved, had httle chance of any large accessions from the great profes- 
sional and trading body, simply for the reason that this body could 
not afford the time for a prolonged general education ; but an acces- 
sion from the higher portions of this body, if proper concessions were 
made, did not seem impossible.' The Committee however are not 
discouraged at the slow progress, or fruitless attempts of these 
learned bodies. They do not despair of arriving at some means for 
the advancement of learning beyond the usual point of a Collegiate 
or Gymnastic course. The Medical and Theological Schools have 
here already done much, perhaps all that can at present be done in 
that direction ; but for the profession of higher Jurisprudence, and 
for the practical sciences in all their variety, the door is yet open, and 
possibly much may be done by the College in advancing a know- 
ledge of those branches. The Committee simply report this subject 
as having engaged their attention ; but they reserve further observa- 
tions for a future occasion, and they offer the foregoing suggestions 
to the Board, with the hope that the thoughts of the Trustees may 
be brought to these points, and that they may be guided and en- 
lightened in their future deliberations by the sentiments and reflec- 
tion which this partial report may educe from the several members 
of the Board." 

The Committee again made a report on the 6th March, 
1854, showing the outlines or scheme of a Collegiate course, 
with the addition of University studies, which, however, 
was reported by them as incomplete, and subject to such 
modifications as farther consideration or suggestions from 
members of the Board of Trustees or from the Faculty might 
seem to render expedient. That scheme is here inserted. 



30 



" Outline or Scheme of a Collegiate Course, with the addition of 
the Studies usually called University Studies. 

" The Classical Course, as now in use, to be preserved, with the 
alterations and modifications mentioned below. A co-ordinate Scien- 
tific Course, with due regard to Classical and Ethical instruction. 

" The principle of the present College Course, as far as attainment 
is concerned, &c., before a Degree of A. B. shall be conferred, to be 
retained, and applied to both the above Courses, as mentioned below. 

" I. The Classical Course, as at present established, to be substan- 
tially preserved for three years ; that is, the Freshman, Sophomore, 
and Junior, with adaptations, however, to the future studies, both 
sub-graduate and post-graduate of the College. 

" The Co-ordinate, mainly Scientific Course, to occupy two years, 
and a third when the demand shall justify it. 

" The requisites for admission into this Course to be so regulated 
that the attainments of the attendants upon this Course at the end 
of two years, and upon the Classical Course at the end of three 
years, will equally qualify the Students for admission into the Senior 
or Graduating Class. 

" At the end of the Classical Term of three years, and of the 
Scientific Term of two years, a certificate of proficiency to be given, 
in Arts, or in Science, as tke case may be, which will entitle the Stu- 
dents to admission to the studies of the concluding year. 

" At the end of the studies of this concluding, or Senior year, the 
Degree of A. B. shall be conferred on those Students who may be 
found deserving of it. The studies of this year shall be conducted 
in one of the three Schools or Departments now to be described. 

" 11. After the three year Classical, and probably two year Scien- 
tific Course, the Course of study shall be divided into three Schools 
or Faculties, the studies in one of which, for the first year of the 
Departmental Studies, (being the same as the present Senior year, 
and to continue to be called the Senior year,) shall be required for 
the Degree of A. B. for those who have pursued the Classical Course, 
and for the Degree of Bachelor of Science for those who have pur- 
sued the Scientific Course. 

" These Schools or Faculties shall be — 

'* T. A School or Faculty of Philosophy or Philology, com- 
prising * * * 



31 

" II. A School or Faculty of Jurisprudence and History^ com- 
prising * * * 
" III. A School or Faculty of Mathematical and Physical 
Science^ comprising * ^ * 
" The Studies of the^ three Schools or Faculties to be distributed 
throughout three years, the first year of which will require, on the 
part of the Student, fifteen hours per week of recitation, excepting 
vacations. 

" A less number of hours per week, perhaps ten, will be required 
in the second and third year, which two years comprise the post- 
graduate Course. 

" Students may be admitted into either of the three Schools or 
Faculties upon examination, without having been connected with the 
College." 

At the same meeting (on 6th March, 1854,) the Commit- 
tee recommended the adoption of the following Resolutions, 
which were then passed : 

" Resolved, That in view of the approaching necessity of dividing 
and redistributing the duties of the existing Chairs, including the 
one now vacant, the subjects entrusted to those Chaii-s, their Titles, 
hours of attendance, and modes of compensation, be considered as 
necessarily held ad interim, and liable to modifications to take effect 
at no distant day. 

" Resolved, That in furtherance of the proposed modifications, 
the Professors be invited to present to the Committee on the Course, 
such improvements in the College plan of Education as they, in the 
exercise of their discretion, may deem it proper to suggest, and that 
the Committee be authorised to address to the Professors such ques- 
tions in relation to the College Course as it may be thought advisa- 
ble to propose." 

The Professors had, on the 3d April, 1854, in communi- 
cations in writing made by them respectively to the Com- 
mittee, responded to these Resolutions ; and on that day, 
upon the recommendation of the Committee, a Resolution 
was passed that such communications should be given to 
the President, with a request that he would examine them 



32 

and return them to the Committee, with such suggestions 
as might occur to him. 

After the production of this evidence it may safely be 
asked, Are the Trustees of this institution vindicated from 
the charge made against them by Mr. Ruggles ? Have 
they " avowedly and perseveringly neglected and disparaged 
the Liberal Arts and Sciences ?" Have they shown them- 
selves unmindful of the duty, so far as it rests upon them, 
to found a University? On the contrary, does not this 
statement of facts (concerning which there can be no dis- 
pute) show that they are at this moment, and had been for 
months before he wrote, taking the most judicious measures 
both to improve and enlarge the Course of Instruction of the 
institution, giving due prominence to the Natural or Practi- 
cal Sciences ? 

But, to expose more completely th3 unfairness that cha- 
racterizes this attack, compare his statements with the fact. 
Speaking of the Free Academy, on page 19, he says : 

" Two Universities,— two great centres of scholarship 
and science,— cannot exist together in the same city. One 
or the other must be absorbed or annihilated, — and we may 
live to see this so-called democratic school, founded avow- 
edly because we did not satisfy the just demands of the 
community, (a fact which may be doubted,) giving intel- 
lectual tone to the city, and through the city to the nation, — 
while we remain travelling round the narrow circle, to which 
inveterate habit has accustomed usJ^ 

Again, on page 22,— 

" It is not to be denied that members of our Board esti- 
mate very differently the necessity, value and dignity of 
Physical Science. The fact is abundantly manifested, not 
only in the open disparagement of that branch of human 
knowledge, but" * * * * 

It is untrue that we are travelling round such narrow 
circle, or that inveterate habit has accustomed us to such 
gyrations. And it is equally untrue that members of the 



33 

Board have openly disparaged Physical Science. It may 
be conjectured that Mr. Ruggles intended this censure to 
apply to those of his colleagues who found it their duty to 
differ with him on the subject which has been the pretext 
for these unfounded statements. And yet some of that ob- 
noxious class have originated and devised, or are actively 
engaged in the execution of the very measures which he 
now recommends, as if they had never even been hinted at 
in the Board except by himself. And it is remarkable that, 
on the 6th March, when the Report of the Committee on 
the Course had been read, Mr. Ruggles expressed his appro- 
bation of it, and yet, on the 29th of the same month, he 
sent to each of the Trustees his pamphlet, containing state- 
ments and inferences so entirely irreconcilable with the fact 
that such a report had been made. And this is the witness 
upon whose testimony all the prevailing excitement is 
founded ! 

There are other statements in the pamphlet under review 
which may be answered in a few words. 

Mr. Ruggles argues against the supposed position that 
the College is so connected with the Church to which he 
professes his attachment, that its managers are entitled to 
confine their selection of Professors to men of her commu- 
nion. Whatever of this kind may have been said without 
its walls, such a proposition was never advocated by any 
of its Trustees. So of the insinuation that Dr. Gibbs had 
been accused of infidelity : no one did him the injustice, or 
allowed himself to be guilty of the indecorum, of applying 
such a term as infidel, to that gentleman. 

And for the contradiction of Mr. Ruggles, last in order in 
this connection. His positive assertion that Wolcott Gibbs 
" was called to account, by members of our body represent- 
ing at least three separate religious denominations, for his 
want of conformity to a Theological standard of their own, 
compounded from incoherent and opposing creeds, and agree- 
ing only in hostility to the denomination to which he be- 
longed," is wholly unfounded in fact. 



MMPlii 



34 

The statements last alluded to, and those which relate 
to the management of the educational and financial con- 
cerns of the College, unfounded as they are shown to be, 
were in addition entirely unnecessary. They could have 
been left out of his argument without at all impairing its 
force. They do not touch the merits of Dr. Gibbs, or, except 
the last two, if true, in any degree elucidate the objections 
which prevented his election. But they are a part of a 
series of attacks, seeking an end regardless of the means, 
and by those means casting unjust discredit upon an insti- 
tution which their author was bound by considerations of 
duty- and honor to serve and protect. He has accused his 
colleagues of a violation of their trust. How has he per- 
formed his ? 

Reference has been made to the means, other than the 
printing the pamphlet, which have been used to secure the 
introduction of Dr. Gibbs into Columbia College as one of 
its Professors. It is necessary to extend this pamphlet by 
a narrative of occurrences in connection with this vacancy, 
in order to give a correct understanding of the character of 
those means, and of the nature of the controversy which 
has compelled the present statement. 

The resignation of Prof, Renwick was accepted on the 
21st November last, and on the same day a committee was 
appointed to receive testimonials in relation to the vacant 
Professorship. That committee did not report imtil the 
succeeding 9th January: and on that day, be it clearly 
understood, before a word had been said in relation to the 
vacant Professorship, — before the committee had reported, 
and when, as yet, the Board of Trustees had not been put 
into possession of the names of any candidate for the vacant 
chair, Mr. Ruggles moved certain resolutions which after 
an argumentative preamble asserted, 1st. That in filling 
the vacant Professorship, the members of the Board could 
not lawfully or rightfully exclude or object to any candidate 
"on account of his particular tenets in matters of rehgion," 
nor "make the religious tenets of any person a condition of 



35 

admission" to such Professorship, or a ground of exchision 
therefrom, nor "require any rehgious qualification or test" 
from such candidate : and 2d, that in fiUing such Professor- 
ship, the Trustees were legally and morally bound to select 
such Professor, with reference solely to his fitness for the 
place, without regard to his religious opinions. This was an 
abstract proposition. It was uncalled for, and took the 
Trustees entirely by surprise. It had relation to no indi- 
vidual. And by it the Board was asked to restrict, so far 
as its action could do it, the independent right to vote of 
its members. And the condemnation of the principle of the 
resolutions was general. They were indefinitely postponed. 
But what was the end proposed to be reached by moving 
the resolutions ? Did it seem to Mr. Ruggles to be good 
policy to advance an untenable proposition which, by the 
indignation it should excite, would call out declarations of 
opinion from those against whom particularly it was aimed ? 
Nothing is hazarded in saying that those resolutions ought 
not to have been passed : and subsequent developments lead 
to the well grounded suspicion, that his expectation was to 
gain a foundation upon which to base the allegation of per- 
secution for religion's sake, to be afterwards loudly uttered 
abroad. If this was the design, it was unsuccessful. For 
no one at that, or at any other time, declared that he would 
not vote for Dr. Gibbs on account of his religious profession, 
or pronounced any favorable opinion of his character or 
qualifications as entitling him to an election over his com- 
petitors, apart from his religion. This was on the 9th of 
January, and the election was made on the succeeding 3d 
April. Much occurred in the meanwhile. 

At the meeting of the 9th January, after the disposition 
of the resolutions, the committee on the vacant Professorship 
reported that they had received several nominations. These 
were not then read, but the Board adjourned to the 17th 
January for the purpose of hearing them read. 

On that day, there being an impression that sufficient 
means had not been taken to procure the applications of the 



mmmmmm 



36 

distinguished scientific men of the country for the very- 
important chair then vacant, which might be supposed to 
offer a very desirable position to some of them, and that the 
Trustees were therefore more restricted in their choice than 
might be for the advantage of the College, the committee 
were, by resolution, instructed to take such measures as 
might be in their power, to present the names and testimo- 
nials of other candidates at the next meeting. 

The result was, that on the 6th February the committee 
reported six additional applicants with their testimonials, 
amongst whom was Professor McCulloch, who eventually 
received the appointment. 

In the interval between these two meetings of the 17th 
January and the 6th of February, numerous articles ap- 
peared in the newspaper press of this city, advocating and 
enforcing the election of Dr. Gibbs. The contents of these 
may be briefly summed up. They asserted the pre-emi- 
nence of Dr. Gibbs over all other candidates, and that such 
pre-eminence was admitted ; they stated that he was about 
to be rejected because he was a Unitarian ; they contained 
gross misstatements and misrepresentations of the manage- 
ment of the property of the College, and of the motives of 
the Trustees, both in regard to the filling this vacancy and 
to other branches of the government of the institution ; they 
ridiculed the Trustees, and charged them with being inejfi- 
cient and indifferent to the proper ends and aims of the 
College ; they spread the names and religious professions 
of the Trustees before the public ; and ridiculing the con- 
duct of the financial concerns of the College, they threaten- 
ed that if the particular system of management of its pro- 
perty therein suggested should not be pursued, or if Dr. 
Gibbs should not be elected, individual Trustees, who might 
by their votes disregard either injunction, would be legally 
proceeded against. 

Now as to these articles : Whilst if they were the sponta- 
neous opinions of the public press, however injurious to the 
College in creating false impressions on the public mind in 



37 

relation to its management, they could not justly be any 
objection to the claims of a candidate thus " indecorously" 
pressed upon the consideration of the Trustees ; yet if they 
were resorted to by the friends of a candidate as means to 
secure his election, and were part of a settled design, then 
a different question was presented. In that case it might 
well occur to Trustees of an institution such as this — was 
it safe to establish the precedent of a successful attempt to 
introduce a Professor by measures like these? Would they 
not, if efficacious now, be renewed in other cases ? What 
eifect would their success have upon the future government 
and discipline of the institution ? 

Many Trustees believed them to proceed from the most 
active friends of Dr. Gibbs. with a design thereby to pro- 
mote his election, and that one or more members of the 
Board were cognizant beforehand of their publication. 

It was apparent on their face that they were the produc- 
tion of persons feeling a deep interest in the election of Dr. 
Gibbs. Their object was manifestly to promote his suc- 
cess. They were published at the very point of time when 
their influence might be supposed to tell with the greatest 
effect — immediately before the election was expected to be 
had. They were founded upon statements of such par- 
ticularity, and characterized with so much admixture of 
truth with falsehood, as showed that they must have been 
based upon information furnished by members of the Board 
of Trustees. No evidence could be expected to be procured 
of the agency of any member of the Board further than was 
furnished by the agreement of the tone and spirit of the ar- 
ticles with the course of proceedings within the Board it- 
self. There was enough, however, to excite serious suspi- 
cions. 

To what was then known has now been added the Pam- 
phlet reviewed ; and a comparison of the unfounded state- 
ments of that Pamphlet with those of the articles tend to 
prove that they had the same contriver. In both, there is 
the same baseless assumption of the admitted pre-eminence 



38 

of a particular candidate, — the same unjust and untrue 
statements of the inefficient and negUgent management of 
the institution, expressed with more decorum, indeed, in 
the production the authorship of which is a\^owed, — the 
same false and injurious allegation, that a claim of an ex- 
clusively religious character for the College was set up, — 
and, in short, the same reckless pursuit of an end regard- 
less of the means. 

But further, at a meeting held on the 17th of February, 
the attention of the Board was called to these articles as 
being, what in reality they were, attempts to force a pro- 
fessor into the institution by threats and intimidation, con- 
nected with the display of great disrespect of the govern- 
ment of the College, and indications of a general design, of 
which this was the first step. The result of the remarks 
then made was to elicit expressions of opinion from some 
Trustees, which were calculated to alarm the friends of Dr. 
Gibbs. No personal allusions to any Trustees were made : 
on the contrary, they were expressly disclaimed. But it was 
stated that the information upon which the publications were 
founded must have come from some member or members of 
the Board. Mr. Ruggles, under the excitement of the occa- 
sion, — without having been accused, alluded to, or hinted at 
as in any way connected with the articles complained of, — 
asked, ' Why should he be suspected of doing any thing to 
injure his colleagues V at the same time expressing his at- 
tachment to some of them. This was the substance of 
what he said, distinctly recollected. Why this depreca- 
tion of suspicion ? A profound judge of human nature put 
into the mouth of another man a similar expression : 
^^ Thou canst not say, I did it." 

This was on the 6th of February, (to repeat it again,) 
^nd the election took place on the 3d of April following. 
From the first to the last of these dates, the Press was as 
silent, (except to announce the result of such ballotings as 
were had,) as if it had never taken the least interest in Co- 
lumbia College or its scientific chairs. When it seemed 



39 

for the benefit of Dr. Gibbs to speak, it would speak : when 
it seemed for his benefit to be silent, it would be silent. 
How was this close connection between the management 
of his cause within, and the management of his cause 
without ? 

All these things were folio v\red by the Pamphlet : its con- 
tents and first use: its. real but una vowed purpose to pro- 
duce an effect upon the public mind, giving the contradic- 
tion to its pretended aim : its reliance upon the voice of the 
press as indicative of public opinion, urging that " we can- 
not close our eyes upon the fact, that the community is ex- 
cited and offended by the objection to Dr. Gibbs that he is 
a Unitarian" ; and again in another place, " Rely upon it, 
the community never can be convinced that if Wolcott 
Gibbs be now rejected, he is not rejected by reason of his 
rehgious tenets." 

Taken together, the facts and circumstances which are 
here collated, show beyond reasonable doubt, that every 
step in the progress of these proceedings, inside and outside 
of the Board, were directed by the same controlling hand, 
and were parts of a scheme which probably had a wider 
object than the introduction of a single Professor into this 
institution. 

Upon such of the Trustees of the College as might, before 
these things were done, have formed a favorable opinion of 
the comparative fitness of Di'. Gibbs, these most unusual 
and unwarrantable means for securing his admission to a 
Professor's chair might justly be expected to produce the 
effect to change their judgment, both as to his real merits 
and as to the policy of admitting him, even if in point of 
ability well qualified, or even qualified in a superior degree, 
for the office. We are told that none of these proceedings, 
including the printing of his testimonials, (and we may sup- 
pose the assertion to extend to the present circulation of 
these,) were in any way suggested, instigated or encouraged 
by Dr. Gibbs. We are not told whether they had his con- 
sent. We do not know that he has ever expressed his dis- 



40 

approbation. And we know, moreover, or have the best 
reason to beheve, that they all had for their author or prompt- 
er, his main advocate in this sharp contention for office. 

At this stage of the argument there will appear little rea- 
son to believe that Mr. Ruggles has been in any degree ac- 
tuated by a desire for the preservation of rehgious freedom. 
The facts negative the allegation thaj the gentleman whose 
claim he advocates was rejected by the Trustees by reason 
of his rehgious faith. The assertion (upon which that 
proposition depended) that his supreme excellence was ad- 
mitted, and that his religion was made the sole objection to 
him, has been disproved. But the case now presented 
shows a device and design of Mr. Ruggles to make the re- 
ligion of Dr. Gibbs a means for his introduction, on the 
plea that other Trustees made it a ground of his exclusion. 
It was to be the instrument to compel such Trustees to give 
him their support. His religious profession, his alleged 
merits and his persecution, were shouted to them and to 
the world : their opposite creed was as loudly proclaimed : 
the contrast between their religious belief and his was made 
as manifest as possible to gain greater credit for the accu- 
sation : and then they were told, ' rely upon it, the commu- 
nity will never believe that you have not rejected Wolcott 
Gibbs by reason of his religious tenets.' They were thus 
urged, by all the external pressure that could be brought to 
bear, to put him into the chair on account of his religion, 
lest they should be deemed to keep him out on that ac- 
count. And the necessary consequence was, that they 
could not exercise their judgment by preferring to him 
another whom they really believed better fitted for the 
place, without incurring the odium now cast upon them. 

Enough has now been stated to enable the reader to un- 
derstand the nature of this controversy. Down to the time 
of the election, it was simply a contest for place. That 
place was a Professor's chair in a College. In submitting 
the name of an applicant for this chair, it was becoming 
and proper that he and his friends should have relied upon 



41 

his qualifications alone, leaving the Trustees of the Institu- 
tion to their free and unbiased judgment to determine 
whether the true interests of the College would b6 promoted 
by his election. If this would have been the course proper 
to be pursued by him or his friends, not officers of the Col- 
lege, it was eminently the duty of any of its Trustees, who 
were interested in his success, not to depart from it. Yet 
we find that, instead of confining himself to this rule, a 
Trustee of the College, professing to have her interests and 
welfare deeply at heart, has so far forgotten his duty to her 
as to be her assailant before the public, and by unfounded 
statements to do her great injustice and disturb the judg- 
ments of his associates, in order to compass the elevation of 
his favorite. We find that he has overlooked every other 
consideration but the accomplishment of this one end — in 
his view so desirable as to render justifiable the most ex- 
ceptionable means to obtain it. He would gain for the 
College a good Professor for her benefit ; and to persuade 
her Trustees that it was for her benefit, he has inflicted 
upon her great injury. So that now, no explanation of his 
conduct seems probable except this — that he would destroy, 
to build again. 

It has been said, that down to the time of the election 
this was a contest for place. Even without regarding what 
has occurred since that time, the so-great eagerness of a 
Trustee in such contest is hardly comprehensible, on the 
supposition that his design reached no further than the ob- 
ject then contended for. But what is now the end in view? 
Six members of the Board of Trustees of Columbia College 
are clergymen. It may be conjectured that some of them — 
it is impossible to say how many — perhaps all — are aimed 
at in the attack of Mr. Ruggles. An attempt seems now to 
be made to remove them from the Board, because their pre- 
sence and votes are inconvenient, or interfere with some ul- 
terior designs upon an institution of growing importance, 
and in order (as we have been told by writers for the press,) 
that others may be put in their places by the votes of those 



42 

that would then remain. No evidence of such designs is 
possessed by the writer beyond what has met the pubUc 
eye. But it may be asked, Why the industrious dissemi- 
nation of the Pamphlet by thousands ? Why this public 
excitement perseveringly kept up? It is not to put Dr. 
Gibbs into the coveted chair. That is filled. It must be 
something in the future. What that something is, must be 
left to conjecture. 

This controversy has not been sought. It would have 
been gladly avoided. And the unpleasant duty of entering 
upon it has been put off until the call for its performance 
was imperative. The writer entertains the hope that he 
has not fallen into intemperance of expression in regard to 
the party mainly involved in those transactions upon which 
he has found occasion to comment. Of this, the public 
now appealed to must judge. But to none of the others of 
his colleagues does he attribute any other motive than a 
desire for the best interests of the institution over which 
they are the governors. In the matter which for the occa- 
sion divided them, there was an honest difference of opin- 
ion, which — though the cause from the importance of the 
subject, of earnest feeling — will not interrupt, it is believed, 
the mutual respect and cordiality which have always cha- 
racterized their ofiicial intercourse. 

For the rest : It may be said with truth, and it ought to 
be said, out of justice to the gentleman who was lately 
elected to the Professorship of Chemistry and Natural and 
Experimental Philosophy in Columbia College, that on the 
ballot upon which he was so elected, those who voted for 
him, one and all, believed him the best fitted for the place 
beyond all for whom any ballots were then cast : and that 
the result would not have been different had Dr. Gibbs be- 
longed to either of the Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, or 
Episcopal Churches. 

The eleven gentlemen who cast their ballots on that oc- 
casion for the Professor elect, had the firmness to do so not- 
withstanding all that was done to compel a different result. 



43 

Without fear or favor, they have performed their duty to 
the institution of which they are Trustees. For that they 
are denounced : and at the call of the friends of an unsuc- 
cessful candidate for a scientific chair, — setting up his pre- 
eminence in derogation of the decision of a Board upon 
whose judgment alone the question of his fitness rightfully 
and legally depended, — it has become necessary not only to 
justify those Trustees, but to vindicate the good name of 
the College itself, tarnished by his advocate, whose rela- 
tions to the College ought ever, whilst they continued, to 
have protected her from his assaults. 



i 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



029 929 039 6 • 



# 



^ 








LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

029 929 039 6 



^^ 



1 



I 



y 





